Speedier Screening May Be Coming To an Airport Near You

Catwalk by mlw4428 · 2014-02-24 04:03 · Score: 0

Mix it with the nude stuff and it can be a Lady Gaga fashion show!

Re:Catwalk by lbmouse · 2014-02-24 04:46 · Score: 1, Funny

You mean an OB/Gyn exam... same thing.
Re:Catwalk by cayenne8 · 2014-02-24 04:50 · Score: 1

Why don't they just do something simple.
At the gates, metal detector, and on other side guards with bomb sniffing dogs.
That's really all they need....I'd feel perfectly save doing that, I'd not get irradiated, groped or detained unnecessarily.
But I guess that would be too simple for govt. and wouldn't cost nearly enough for the feds to spend, eh?

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Catwalk by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:23 · Score: 1

I think a walk-and-screen system would work well, but only if it outlined peoples' bones in blue and highlighted any contraband items in red.
Re:Catwalk by mlw4428 · 2014-02-24 05:43 · Score: 2

If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I understand the complexities of trying to stop someone determined to hurt as many people as possible. The question isn't "what's the bare bones solution" but rather "what is an adequate solution".

9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching. The key is to find a balance, develop better technologies, and work WITH the populace. Not provide the bare minimal amount of protection that even I can circumvent with 3 different ideas off the top of my head in 30 seconds.
Re:Catwalk by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 06:30 · Score: 1

Better idea: Get government thugs out of airports; screening will be much faster, and our rights won't be getting violated.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:Catwalk by lgw · 2014-02-24 06:43 · Score: 1

If it was simple it'd be done.
Utterly false. The primary purpose of any government agency is to increase the reach and the budget of that agency. It is really that simple. Bomb sniffing dogs can find stuff "vacuum sealed" - you'd be amazed how few molecules a good scent hound needs. No one is going to hijack a plane with merely a sharp object while passengers still remember 9/11.
Plus the threat is minor: if we had the courage to simply continue business as usual when a plane blew up, they wouldn't even be terrorist targets: terrorists don't hate airplanes.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Catwalk by cayenne8 · 2014-02-24 06:45 · Score: 1

If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage? What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword? I
What you described would possibly work today....
Although, they do xray the luggage still in my scenario, but what they do today could be fooled with what you described pretty much just as much as it could with my less intrusive methods.
And, that vacuumed sealed explosive had better be 100% air tight, and the outside completely sanitized of all explosive materials residue. If you did a good enough job to have the dogs miss it, likely as much, it would be missed by the current tools used at TSA, yet we're still stuck with the intrusive procedures.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Catwalk by mlw4428 · 2014-02-24 06:54 · Score: 2

Is this the Libertarian fantasy? The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency and you'd be surprised what a well funded terrorist cleanroom can produce. As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know? What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?

I fully agree that the threat is minor...part of that is due to the work of various government agencies, lucky, and our international relations. I disagree with your targets stuff, even "continuing" business as usual isn't so simple unless you are of the opinion that people should remain heartless. In that case, anything is possible...even a Libertarian future!
Re:Catwalk by no1nose · 2014-02-24 07:24 · Score: 1

Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters? Not even bombs or guns, or big knives. Of course, there are the shoe bomber's now. But those horrific tragedies were able to happen due to lowly box cutters. Recently, I traveled across my state for work with a co-worker. We had to rack some servers at the DR site. His bag had numerous tools like pliers and screw drivers in it. My bag had an unopened Arrowhead water bottle. I was pulled aside and received a personal screening while my co-worker waited for me, putting his shoes on, and holding his bag of pointy metal objects.
Re:Catwalk by lgw · 2014-02-24 07:25 · Score: 1

The purpose of any government agency is to do the job given to that agency

I admire your charming naivete. I hope life keeps treating you so well that you never develop my hardened cynicism.

As for the knife thing, how exactly do you know?

Well, I respect the opinions of the airline pilots I've discussed this with at length (while the hardened cockpit doors aren't perfect, they're enough), plus there have been a few incidents since 9/11 where passengers perceived a threat and "dogpiled" the supposed hijacker.

What about a plastic container carrying a biological weapon such as smallpox or a modified flu?

Now we're into movie plot threats. What if the terrorists are actually shape-shifting reptoid aliens, like the New Zealand Prime Minister or that Obama bodyguard? I can invent better stories than you, I think.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Catwalk by BobMcD · 2014-02-24 07:25 · Score: 1

Why would an attacker want to get your vial of biological agent on the plane? Wouldn't it make more sense to open it in line ahead of the ticketing counter, where it would spread in more directions more readily? If you wait until you're on the plane, you're missing the opportunity to infect the other destinations that airport serves.
Also let's not forget that the best delivery agent of biological warfare is an infected human host.
Did your Libertarian bashing get in the way of your argument, perhaps?
Re:Catwalk by sexconker · 2014-02-24 07:37 · Score: 1

If it was simple it'd be done. Bomb/weapon detection isn't so simple. What if I had a vacuumed sealed container (plastic of course) stuffed into my luggage?
The dog will still get you. The container, your luggage, and yourself will reek of explosives/drugs/whatever. You can't wash that shit off. Attempting to do so just makes it worse, actually. And your use of a plastic container makes it worse as well. Plastics are notorious for absorbing and retaining odors.

What if I brought on a ceramic knife/sword?
Your luggage is inaccessible during the flight, as usual.
Your carry-on is x-rayed, as usual.
Your sword is going to be plainly obvious on your person.
Your concealed knife won't get you into the cockpit - it'll get you bum rushed by passengers.

9/11 ticked off a LOT of people and they questioned why the government didn't stop this at the airport or before hence all of this overreaching.
Who the fuck are these "LOT of people" that question why the government didn't stop box cutters at the airport? Hint: They don't exist.
People did complain that the government fucking knew about the individuals and did nothing. They should have been stopped before the airport, not at it. It has nothing to do with airport screening.
Re:Catwalk by sexconker · 2014-02-24 07:39 · Score: 1

Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters? Not even bombs or guns, or big knives. Of course, there are the shoe bomber's now. But those horrific tragedies were able to happen due to lowly box cutters. Recently, I traveled across my state for work with a co-worker. We had to rack some servers at the DR site. His bag had numerous tools like pliers and screw drivers in it. My bag had an unopened Arrowhead water bottle. I was pulled aside and received a personal screening while my co-worker waited for me, putting his shoes on, and holding his bag of pointy metal objects.
Be honest: Are you browner or hairier than him?
Re:Catwalk by no1nose · 2014-02-24 07:42 · Score: 1

Haha!! just a techie white boy. But 20 years younger.
Re:Catwalk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 07:47 · Score: 0

Didn't 9/11 happen due to box cutters?
No, 9/11 happened due to airline policy that the flight crew comply with demands made by hijackers.
No one really considered the possibility that the hijackers would take the plane on a suicide attack a likely threat, so the expectation was that by not resisting they avoid any hostages bing killed.
Re:Catwalk by mlw4428 · 2014-02-24 14:55 · Score: 1

> I admire your charming naivete. I hope life keeps treating you so well that you never develop my hardened cynicism.

Ah, the mark of someone who has never considered the possibility that he might be wrong. No, it's just that anyone else who disagrees with you JUST doesn't have YOUR expertise. Does it feel good to sit upon your throne, my liege?

>Well, I respect the opinions of the airline pilots I've discussed this with at length (while the hardened cockpit doors aren't perfect, they're enough), plus there have been a few incidents since 9/11 where passengers perceived a threat and "dogpiled" the supposed hijacker.

AeroMéxico Flight 576
Eagle Airways Flight 2279

> Now we're into movie plot threats. What if the terrorists are actually shape-shifting reptoid aliens, like the New Zealand Prime Minister or that Obama bodyguard? I can invent better stories than you, I think.

Yes, because it's not feasible for a vial to be stolen from a country like Russia. But I guess it is just a movie plot and I'm sure some moron (who was probably a Libertarian as well) thought the same thing about 9/11. That there was no way some third world nation terrorists could ever hijack and ram two Boeing 747s into two towers on the same day. No sir, that also sounds like a fantastic movie plot...heck one of the masterminds behind this could be the leader of some Muslim cult with a black beard (to show how evil he is), yes...now all we need is a Libertarian hero who'll do everything himself because he's "smarter" than some "gubmint" agency. By god I better call Spielberg, I think I shall call this movie "Libertarian: Ultimate American -- Laughs in the face of everything and builds his own roads and polices his community all at once, by himself".

Ok, so the title needs work.
Re:Catwalk by lgw · 2014-02-25 06:16 · Score: 1

To quote the man who invented the phrase "movie plot threat"

The 9/11 terrorists used small pointy things to take over airplanes, so we ban small pointy things from airplanes. Richard Reid tried to hide a bomb in his shoes, so now we all have to take off our shoes. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security said that it might relax airplane security rules. It's not that there's a lessened risk of shoes, or that small pointy things are suddenly less dangerous. It's that those movie plots no longer capture the imagination like they did in the months after 9/11, and everyone is beginning to see how silly (or pointless) they always were...
The problem with movie plot security is that it only works if we guess right. If we spend billions defending our subways, and the terrorists bomb a bus, we've wasted our money. To be sure, defending the subways makes commuting safer. But focusing on subways also has the effect of shifting attacks toward less-defended targets, and the result is that we're no safer overall.
Terrorists don't care if they blow up subways, buses, stadiums, theaters, restaurants, nightclubs, schools, churches, crowded markets or busy intersections. Reasonable arguments can be made that some targets are more attractive than others: airplanes because a small bomb can result in the death of everyone aboard, monuments because of their national significance, national events because of television coverage, and transportation because most people commute daily. But the United States is a big country; we can't defend everything.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Catwalk by nobodie · 2014-02-28 10:05 · Score: 1

golly, scarey ceramic swords on airplanes! And I know that if you can manage a ceramic sword you're not going to try to get one on a plane because of those fancy x-ray thingys at the airport. They can't get nothin' by those thingys, no they can't. except guns and knives and bombs of course, but shoot, as long as they stop the ceramic swords.

--
Subversion of spatial scale luxury decoration ideas.

More pork? by Terwin · 2014-02-24 04:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

It would be nice to think that they are attempting to address an obvious problem, but with the TSA, I suspect this is going to be just another opportunity to line the pockets of politically connected people...

Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?

Re:More pork? by afidel · 2014-02-24 04:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Re:More pork? by dpilot · 2014-02-24 04:20 · Score: 2

One of them watched the old "Total Recall" with Arnie. Even though the movie was rated R they didn't take advantage of the obvious opportunity with their "walking screening device".

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:More pork? by XxtraLarGe · 2014-02-24 04:30 · Score: 4, Funny

The obvious problem is with the existence of the TSA to begin with, but bureaucracy doesn't work to eliminate itself, only to grow and consume ever greater amounts of resources.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy!" - Oscar Wilde

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:More pork? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:15 · Score: 0

Question: if the lines got shorter, how would they gather an audience for their security theater?
Assume everyone is a terrorist.
Very short lines at the security screening point.
Large gathered audience in the holding rooms for security theater.
Win-Win!
Re:More pork? by interkin3tic · 2014-02-24 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suspect they're more concerned with backlash. I mean, those long lines AREN'T filled with people who are glad TSA is doing their thing. I don't know what would make them think we've suddenly grown spines after all this time and are going to demand the TSA be abolished. We've swallowed the bullshit about it being essential for security for many times longer than I would think would be needed to make it seem like normal and acceptable to most people. But maybe TSA is privy to data on how frustrated people are by their bullshit, and is worried some congressman will start saying it needs to be cut to save on taxes. There are grumblings evidently about shrinking the military, that's something I didn't expect to hear anytime soon.
Re:More pork? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:23 · Score: 0

> gather an audience
That isn't the point of this system that the Bush junta created. It was created to embarrass and demean people. If one of the Republicans that controls the Obama administration can come-up with a way of making the lines faster while still humiliating people, then why wouldn't they do it? They made Obama spend over $88 million on the full body scanners so of course they will force Obama to approve anything that puts more money in the pocket of Republicans and further shames the public.
Re:More pork? by BobMcD · 2014-02-24 07:31 · Score: 1

I too suspect the motive is misplaced, but I'm assuming they're looking for a street-viable implementation and are willing to use the airports as a test bed.
Look at the requirements - they want to scan through leather jackets. Couldn't the airport just insist you send those through with your baggage?
The specs call for very little crowd participation.

I saw faster screening at Orlando by OzPeter · 2014-02-24 04:08 · Score: 1

For a small fee you can pay a company to allow you to skip the line of people waiting to be scanned. This allows you to walk up directly to the screening section rather than wait 30 to 45 minutes in line with the masses. Capitalism at its best. /sarcasm

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?

Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by GigsVT · 2014-02-24 04:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
If your money is worth more than your time, you'll wait, if your time is worth more than your money, you'll pay. That's a fundamental decision every time you say something like "I'll pay someone to change my oil because I don't want to spend 20 minutes and get dirty doing it myself", or "I'll eat out so I don't have to cook". Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-02-24 04:43 · Score: 2

What company is that? I signed up for Global Entry (I travel internationally a dozen or more times a year), and got a free TSAPre account as well - meaning I can use the short lines. But only because I went through a full Government background check.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by jxander · 2014-02-24 04:46 · Score: 4, Informative

I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
Now if you'll just bend over, I need to insert this probe for national security reasons. Or you could pay me $20 and I'll find someone else.

--
This signature is false.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by OzPeter · 2014-02-24 04:48 · Score: 2

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency,
That is the whole point. And while I understand the time/money trade off, what I object to is that this market shouldn't exists in the first place.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by OzPeter · 2014-02-24 04:51 · Score: 1

What company is that?

It is CLEAR. It effectively allows you to skip the part where the TSA agent looks at your id and and ticket and agrees that you are who you are.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by OzPeter · 2014-02-24 04:54 · Score: 1

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
Forgot to add that this system doesn't scale. If a larger number of people decide that time is money, then the skipping line will get congested and we'll all be back in the same boat again.
The true solution for congestion is to either speed processing or increase the number of processing lanes. Everything else is just a money grab

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Infiniti2000 · 2014-02-24 05:01 · Score: 1, Insightful

I agree and would further suggest that it's a form of legalized racketeering. In effect, the system created an inefficient process (racket) and then is attempting to charge us for speeding things up. How this isn't racketeering is beyond me.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by fahrbot-bot · 2014-02-24 05:06 · Score: 2
Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.
Exactly. As noted in the movie Volunteers
- Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.
- Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.
- Chung Mee: Money is money.
- Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?
--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by SuricouRaven · 2014-02-24 05:09 · Score: 1

Perverse incentive. If people can pay money to skip the lines, then longer lines are good for profit.
Much like ISPs: If your $40/month package is good enough for everyday use, a bit of gaming, netflix and the occasional torrent, who is going to pay for the $100/month package? The obvious solution is to make sure the $40/month package is sufficiently rubbish that anyone who can afford to pay more will do so.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by dgatwood · 2014-02-24 05:18 · Score: 2

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by EvanED · 2014-02-24 05:18 · Score: 1

This isn't really anything anyone hasn't already said, but....

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
Nice airline ticket there. It'd be a shame if you missed it.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:22 · Score: 0

The true solution for congestion is to ELIMINATE THE SOURCE OF CONGESTION by going back to 9/10 security screening at the airport. Everything else is just a money grab
FIFY.
The Rape-eye-scan cancer booths, 3 oz bottle limit, forced shoe removal (for some), invasive-but-not-thorough patdowns, and "behavior screening" techniques are security theater ONLY.
Keeping the flight deck doors secured (with felony criminal charges to await any crew that opens them under duress) and having a flight full of passengers ready to beat the carp out of any would-be hijackers are enough to keep the flight reasonably safe.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:28 · Score: 1

true. it will all become just another tax.
maybe they'll end up charging you based on how long you want to wait in line. once people are sorted into 15 mins / 30 mins / 1 hr lines, they'll dynamically reallocate resources to make sure all lines move as planned.
Oh yeah, they can/will also charge depending by destination. If you're flying SF->LA and miss you're flight, you're out $100, but if you're flying SF->Sydney and miss your flight, that's $1000 at least. I imagine you would be willing to pay a lot more to make sure you caught your flight!
Nice little flight you got here... it would be a shame if anything... happened to it.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:31 · Score: 1

Keeping the flight deck doors secured (with felony criminal charges to await any crew that opens them under duress) and having a flight full of passengers ready to beat the carp out of any would-be hijackers are enough to keep the flight reasonably safe.
I'm sure the crew members under duress aren't very concerned about potential felony charges upon landing if they open the doors. I'm sure they are trying to balance the odds of dying immediately if they refuse to open the doors and in short order if they do. I'm sure landing and being arrested for criminal charges would be a near-best case outcome.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:33 · Score: 1

Once my line was super backed up so they shunted me through the CLEAR line. I went to take off my belt and shoes but they shrugged and just motioned me through. Nice security you got there. ATL for those who keep track.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Idbar · 2014-02-24 05:56 · Score: 1

I don't know if people receive background checks when they belong to "elite" airline miles programs. But many first class and other people in those programs for sure can go through the fast line.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Jason+Levine · 2014-02-24 06:11 · Score: 1

Well, there is a long and boring reason why government agencies doing this isn't racketeering. You see....
*points behind you* TERRORIST!!!! *ducks out of nearby window when you look away*

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:15 · Score: 1

"But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service."

Oh, right, it's not that your proposal is a gaping security hole or anything.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Jason+Levine · 2014-02-24 06:15 · Score: 1

I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts them from liability. They reported it in and landed ASAP. They have no liability for damage the terrorist did."
(Not sure if this is the case legally or not, but given our sue-happy society, it should be.)

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by master_kaos · 2014-02-24 06:15 · Score: 1

In Canada this isn't true (used to be until TPIA providers became a real threat to the big providers. Now it is structured to be more around upload usage, and bandwidth. http://www.start.ca/services/highspeed Very decent pricing structure. THe $40 pacakage really does work for 99% of people. But there are people who want the faster speeds/more bandwidth.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:17 · Score: 0

"enough to keep the flight reasonably safe"

From hijackings, sure. I fail to see how those measures prevent a bombing though.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Jason+Levine · 2014-02-24 06:17 · Score: 1

My bigger concern would be pilots being pressured into opening the door from the inside. They aren't in any immediate danger of harm, but might feel obligated to open the doors to "help those poor people on the other side." Yes, what might be happening on the other side of the doors might be horrible, but they should know that they'll be shielded from any liability so long as they immediately report it in and make an emergency landing the first opportunity they can.

--
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:27 · Score: 1

Would it have flagged any of the 9/11 hijackers? No. So its basically saying a terrorist can skip the fake security too with a little money. Believe it or not, a terrorist organization with a goal has more money than you or I.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 06:35 · Score: 1

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely.
No. The true answer is to get government thugs out of airports and stop harassing people.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 06:38 · Score: 1

Why do they need to? Look, freedom has risks; deal with it. Maybe you'll die today, or you'll die some other time. If you want to have freedom, you can't beg the government to take away people's rights in exchange for safety; you're a worthless coward if you do.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by lgw · 2014-02-24 06:46 · Score: 2

You do realize they more-or-less do that now, right?

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by CrimsonAvenger · 2014-02-24 07:17 · Score: 1

you're flight
No, I am not flight. Are you flight?

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by tsqr · 2014-02-24 07:19 · Score: 1

I think the problem is that we've created artificial supply and demand.
They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Ingenium13 · 2014-02-24 07:25 · Score: 1

Except when they deny you without telling you why, with no real appeal process, because you can't JUST get pre-check, you have to get one of the other certifications instead. The most common one is Global Entry, which allows expedited customs. Have you ever forgotten to declare something small coming back into the country and they find it (even if it's not prohibited)? Then you're permanently banned from this program. Ever had someone ship you something from overseas and accidentally misdeclare customs (outside your control)? Banned. I found out I was banned after paying the $100 non-refundable fee for the latter reason because a seller didn't fill out the customs form properly.
They need to offer a way to only get pre-check without going through one of the other programs.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by tsqr · 2014-02-24 07:26 · Score: 1

The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely. Frequent travelers (the majority) would do so, and this would cut the number of people waiting in line to almost nothing.
But they won't do that, because the TSA is primarily a jobs program, not a security screening service.
Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year at a few airports and airlines, and is expanding.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by lgw · 2014-02-24 07:31 · Score: 1

Well, you don't need Global Entry, there's a program that just takes a criminal background check (but doesn't help with international travel). You just need a Known Traveler Number. So unless your "failure to declare" was actually felony smuggling, you should be good. Assuming, of course, that there's not someone with a similar-sounding name on the arbitraty No Fly List.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 07:56 · Score: 0

Ignoring the general stupidity of many TSA practices, and that this is an artificial market created by government inefficiency, what's so fundamentally wrong with paying more to get through faster?
If your money is worth more than your time, you'll wait, if your time is worth more than your money, you'll pay. That's a fundamental decision every time you say something like "I'll pay someone to change my oil because I don't want to spend 20 minutes and get dirty doing it myself", or "I'll eat out so I don't have to cook". Time/money/value decisions are something you make dozens of every day.
Well yes, if you ignore the parts that are problematic what's left isn't particularly problematic.
The problem here is that "paying to use the express lane" solves a problem that is caused by the inefficiency of an organization that's primary function is generating and enacting stupid practices.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 08:03 · Score: 0

I'd second this but also add that crew should also be held legally to hold no liability for anyone injured because they refused to open the cabin doors. For example, terrorist tries taking over a plane and says "If you don't open these doors, I shoot this woman!" Crew doesn't open the doors. Woman is shot. Woman's family sues the flight attendants, pilots, airline, etc over not opening the doors. At that point, the judge should be able to say "This was a terrorist situation and the law clearly exempts them from liability. They reported it in and landed ASAP. They have no liability for damage the terrorist did."
(Not sure if this is the case legally or not, but given our sue-happy society, it should be.)
I'm pretty sure that's already the case. You're not required to put yourself in danger to save someone else (In fact one of the first things they teach you in any sort of rescue training is "don't make another victim"), and it would be trivial to argue that opening the door would endanger everyone on the plane.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-02-24 08:19 · Score: 1

Interesting. Seems to be a kiosk that works like Global Entry - and based upon the application cost and information, this appears to be an addition to TSAPre which you can already get. It's a private company working in addition to TSA, not replacing the TSA.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-02-24 08:30 · Score: 1

Well, there can be multiple lines. I'm elite with Alaska Air and Delta. Prior to Global Entry/TSA Pre, I could use their shorter "business/elite" line. It short-circuited the long line to check your ID - but you still had the full "remove everything/millimeter scanner" search. With TSA Pre, not only do you get the shorter ID check line, you also get relaxed security screening. No removal of shoes and belts or thin coats, no need to pull the laptops out of the bag. Basically back to how it as pre-9/11.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by dgatwood · 2014-02-24 08:40 · Score: 1

Well, as a matter of fact, the process you propose has been in use for over a year ...
No, it hasn't. My parents have gone through security as "TSA Pre" travelers. There's remarkably little difference between that and normal travel, from what I've seen, and at most, no more difference than the difference between buying a first-class ticket and a coach ticket (separate line). Yes, in theory, you have to do a few less things, but you still get in line, stick your bag on a belt, walk through a magnetometer or a porn scanner, then wait for your bag.
What I was proposing is a separate line in which you hand them a card, they swipe it, verify your face against the data from their database, and you walk straight through security and out the other side. No putting bags on a belt, no magnetometer, no porn scanner. Just walk through.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 08:59 · Score: 0

The vetting process tax is silly. They could eliminate the TSA in a week if they just vetted everyone in the US with the same funding the TSA receives. The NSA already knows enough about everyone to make the process quick and simple.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 09:45 · Score: 0

You have assumed the guys they are trying to catch have no access to money? The ones on 911 trained to be pilots. That is on the order of the cost you are talking to be bumped to the front of the line.
Your way is not better and does nothing.
Re:I saw faster screening at Orlando by jxander · 2014-02-24 11:22 · Score: 1

They don't let anyone avoid security screening merely in exchange for money. "Fast-track" passengers pay for the privilege, but also go through a security vetting process to be eligible. That's different from paying to skip a long line, which is no more artificial than this: "Here, sit in this cramped seat with no leg room surrounded by screaming babies for the next 12 hours. Or, you can pay $$$ for a first-class seat, and I'll find someone else to put back here in Economy."
They don't let you skip the security scan, but they let you pay money to skip standing around in a needlessly long line. That's the artificial creation, the wait. They've made the scanning process much MUCH longer than it has to be. "Please take out any laptops, and any liquids and your shes and ... now step aside for enhanced screening and now put everything back on... "
Paying to upgrade to a first class seat makes more sense. There is only so much space in a plane. So if you want more space, you'll pay a premium.
The whole thing stinks like the old "protection" rackets. How about you pay me, or else something *bad* might happen to your store, and we wouldn't want that.

--
This signature is false.

newspeak removed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:09 · Score: 1

A friend of those in government wants some money and the government is calling out for a product which comes mysteriously close to some useless device which said friend is about to sell.

That will actually improve security. by i+kan+reed · 2014-02-24 04:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is the first tech I've heard of that actually leads me to believe it might cover a real security hole. In this case, the grab a couple semi-automatics and gun down the crowds waiting to get through security hole.

Re:That will actually improve security. by swb · 2014-02-24 05:19 · Score: 4, Informative

The question I have is, why hasn't this happened?
If you accept the argument that terrorists principal goal is to create, well, terror, then you would expect terror attacks with the only real goal of creating chaos and news.
Given the chaos and headlines created at the mall in Kenya or the hotel in India, you would expect something like that to happen in the US. It's not hard to get ahold of guns, there are presumably a fair number of motivated attackers, and there are plenty of targets available.
As an example, coordinated attacks on 3-4 shopping malls simultaneously would be in the news forever and probably have a non-trivial economic impact from people avoiding malls alone, let alone the expected costs of all the security you'd expect to be demanded/added.
Either security is that good or the actual threat just isn't there. I find the former hard to believe.
Re:That will actually improve security. by interkin3tic · 2014-02-24 05:53 · Score: 1

TSA's screening gates are far from the only things done to increase security. If you sell the public on the idea that terrorists are out to kill them and that massive spending to your friends is the only way to keep them safe, then you'd better actually do some things to discourage terrorist attacks.

I'd guess that the biggest change was that we hunted the terrorists. I don't want to know how many billions we spend per al-qaeda member killed, but even with such a poor exchange rate, we've spent an insane amount of money, we're going to get a good number fewer terrorists.

That's maybe a bit too optimistic, the more pessimistic reason would be that with all the soldiers we've put overseas, there are more targets for them a lot closer to home, and that keeps them busy. Keep in mind that the vast majority of islamic terrorism is directed at other muslims, they're not all hell-bent on attacking us over here.

Either way, the cost is way bigger than we should have paid, but it has been paid for the moment.
Re:That will actually improve security. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:26 · Score: 0

I think it's much harder for them to get in the country than it used to be. Since 9/11 I think all of the attempted attacks have originated in other countries.

Also I am pretty sure they don't see mass shootings as a very useful tactic since we have domestic mass shootings not all that infrequently.
Re:That will actually improve security. by AmiMoJo · 2014-02-24 06:50 · Score: 1

The threat isn't there. Most of the potential terrorists have realized just how futile such things are now. They look at 9/11 and 7/7 and see that if anything it just made things worse for Muslims. Much better to go off and fight somewhere like Syria or Afghanistan where they can make more of a difference.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:That will actually improve security. by swb · 2014-02-24 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

There have been a lot of Americans of Somali descent recruited to return to Somalia and fight for al-Shabab, so I don't think it's unrealistic to think that there are people already here who could be recruited to do this. I don't think you need or would even want to recruit people from overseas to do this.
Domestic mass shootings, despite the political rhetoric surrounding them, are always the work of a single individual suffering from some kind of mental illness. They lack all but the most rudimentary planning and execution, they're only quasi-rational. The net effect is that nobody sees them as part of an ongoing threat or conspiracy. There's not this feeling that they are deliberate attacks by a larger organization or with a larger purpose in mind.
A mass shooting by a terrorist organization I would expect to have superior tactics and organization. I would also expect that if they were identified as being terrorist attacks that the perception of threat would be much greater because the attacks would be seen as the result of rational planning and execution, not apparent one-time actions.
Re:That will actually improve security. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 08:08 · Score: 0

The question I have is, why hasn't this happened?
Because there are (statistically speaking) no terrorists in the US, and places that have real terrorist threats (Like Israel) have vastly different approaches to airport security that mitigate that weakness.
Re:That will actually improve security. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 11:46 · Score: 0

The mass shooting by a terrorist organization DID have superior tactics and organization. They surrounded their victims, set the building on fire, made an armed assault and shot everyone, destroyed the evidence, continued to draw their government paychecks and will retire with their government pension.
Re:That will actually improve security. by mjwx · 2014-02-24 14:08 · Score: 1

Domestic mass shootings, despite the political rhetoric surrounding them, are always the work of a single individual suffering from some kind of mental illness. They lack all but the most rudimentary planning and execution, they're only quasi-rational.
Sorry, but this is a complete cop-out.

Mass shootings, whilst never rational (no form of violence really is) can be very well planned. The case of Columbine or Charles Whitman in the US or Anders Brevik in Norway. Whilst Brevik and Whitman were quite disturbed, they weren't incapable of planning or forethought. In fact in their cases, the planning seems quite rational even though the goal was quite mad.

Gun nuts like to blame mental illness because it draws attention away from the fact ready access to guns is the main reason people are able to go on shooting sprees. The fact of the matter is, a coward without a gun remains powerless, a coward with a gun thinks they have some power and control.

Now you're right that the US hasn't suffered any organised attacks because there isn't really any cause or impetus for it. There aren't many hyper radicals in the US and for the most part people are well fed and happy so the breeding grounds needed to turn ordinary people into radicals is not there. But if there were, the violence in the US would make Colombia or Somalia look tame.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:That will actually improve security. by swb · 2014-02-24 15:56 · Score: 1

I think it makes more sense to compare these spree killers with the attackers in Kenya and India. The latter had more sophisticated plans and training, including planting weapons and ammunition ahead of time. The spree killers did none of these things.
Whitman's success was largely due to his training as a Marine sharpshooter, not to any planning or organization. The "planning" of Columbine was about as sophisticated as an elementary school snowball fight.
As disturbed as Breivk is, his case actually comes closest to actually representing an actual terrorist action. His stated motivation was one of extreme politics. The only thing apparently lacking is membership in a broader organization.

Screening genitals? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:13 · Score: 0

Cause you might have a gun inside your uretra!

Re:Screening genitals? by sexconker · 2014-02-24 07:45 · Score: 1

Cause you might have a gun inside your uretra!
My penis gun has a hair trigger once it's cocked, but after a few shots I'll need a few minutes and a tuna sandwich to reload.

I know how to make it go faster... by fallen1 · 2014-02-24 04:15 · Score: 1

...simply remove all of the screening apparatus in the airports. It is vastly just "security theatre" and does nothing but costs taxpayers time, money, and aggravation. To say nothing of the of the decline in tourism and business dollars due to the obtrusiveness.

Oh, yeah, and the total violation of basic human rights and decency with that large, gaping wound it leaves in the 4th Amendment (among others).

--

Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~

Re:I know how to make it go faster... by drinkypoo · 2014-02-24 04:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless. Along the way we found out that you needed locking, reinforced cockpit doors in the bargain, and now we have those. Why not just go back to x-raying luggage, and maybe run the humans past the explosives sniffer? Non-invasive screening of humans seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't want to let people on my multi-million-dollar aircraft without it, if I had one :p

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:24 · Score: 1

See yeah, I *might* actually be ok with their measures if they allowed people to opt out and leave the airport. It's like a bouncer at a club asking to frisk you before you can go in, it's your choice to allow it or just walk away. Unfortunately, the batshit insane people running the USA won't allow someone to simply leave once they decline to be searched. Instead, you'll be detained, arrested, sued and thrown into Gitmo.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Somebody+Is+Using+My · 2014-02-24 04:33 · Score: 1

Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
Because then there would be no need for all those expensive and ineffective machines, and how would the politicians get their kickbacks?
Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.
And because then people might get the idea that they have the right not to be run roughshod by government goons just for the privilege of traveling to another state or country.
I mean, how can the advantages of cost-effectiveness, convenience and liberty compete with all that?
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by TheCarp · 2014-02-24 04:33 · Score: 1

I am ok with that.... as long as they do it exactly like bars do....
That is, screen first, then sell the tickets on the other side of the checkpoint; that way they only sell tickets to people who have already been screened for extra safety.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by XxtraLarGe · 2014-02-24 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless.
Yeah, but then how would they be able to justify forcing people to throw away their bottles of water, shampoo, etc.? "That might be a bomb, throw it in that trash can over there!"
I went to SF for a conference, and bought a snow globe for my in-laws, as is my habit when I travel. They wouldn't let me take it because it could contain "bomb making materials", which is ludicrous. They told me I could either surrender the package, or go to the post office to mail it. If I went to the post office, I'd miss my flight and it was a $4 snow globe, so I told them I'd surrender it. I was highly frustrated and busy putting my stuff together that they had pulled apart, so I was too distracted to notice that they kept not just the snow globe, but the bag that had all of the other souvenirs I had bought, including t-shirts and Ghirardelli chocolates I got for the rest of my family. The TSA is a pack of thieving, security-theater perverts.

--
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by LynnwoodRooster · 2014-02-24 04:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:59 · Score: 0

Agreed. Then maybe the airlines will start feeling the hurt when they don't make their ticket sales.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:07 · Score: 1

I think I have a better example. Traveled to San Francisco from St. Louis, in my carry-on bag were two identical corkscrews, both of them having very tiny blades used to cut (maybe) the coverings off the top of wine bottles. I had forgotten they were there from a recent overnight car visit to wineries in the Missouri area. In California for a week. Did not take them out or knowingly move them. Traveling back to St. Louis, they found one of them, went bat-crap crazy. Gave me the option of throwing the one away or putting it in my checked bags. At $2, I choose to throw it away. They ran my bag through the machines two more times and never did discover the other one, I only did, when I got back home and was unpacking my bags.
Now that makes me feel safe. True Kabuki Safety Theater.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by drinkypoo · 2014-02-24 05:11 · Score: 1

It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
Bro, do you even government? Nothing is ever that simple. There are always at least two goals. In this case, there's the jobs program, and there's also the erosion of those inconvenient civil liberties.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:20 · Score: 0

Ran out of mod points earlier in this discussion, otherwise a +1 insightful. Sorry :(
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:25 · Score: 0

Because long lines must mean that the government is doing SOMETHING good to provide security, giving its citizens a nice warm fuzzy feeling, even if its actual effectiveness is unsubstantiated.
They could pass out free 5mg of Valium to any passenger that got too worked up about flying without the Big Brother Security-theater Blanket. After a few trips, they'd either be a junky or over their fear.
Either way, win.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by shentino · 2014-02-24 05:26 · Score: 1

Tickets are non refundable. Beyond lost sales in the future and bad word of mouth they have nothing to lose from you walking out without boarding.
The TSA of course knows this.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:29 · Score: 0

That is, screen first, then sell the tickets on the other side of the checkpoint;....
So, no more purchasing online or > 21 days in advance to get the best price? The lines for purchasing tickets would be pretty "short," I imagine. As in worse than ever.
Well, I guess that takes the guesswork out of wondering if I'll get a seat on the plane that leaves at the time I want. Or any kind of multiple-stop trip planning; those are overrated anyway (because who wants to go to some podunk town that has a regional/muni airport only?)
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-02-24 05:56 · Score: 0

Sorry, but by now you should have known to pack stuff like that in your checked luggage.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by TheCarp · 2014-02-24 05:57 · Score: 1

However this security measure would be exactly as effective as all their others, and is every bit as needed. So I think it makes a lot of sense, at least as much sense as having a TSA in the first place.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by pete6677 · 2014-02-24 06:06 · Score: 1

If there is one industry that does not care one bit what the public think of them, its airlines.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:32 · Score: 0

Most people choose to buy non-refundable tickets.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 06:42 · Score: 1

Yes, just do what the government thugs who are violating your rights ask you to; it's much easier that way...

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by sexconker · 2014-02-24 07:50 · Score: 1

Why not return to the pre-9/11 security?
Because that would eradicate 90% of the TSA bureaucracy.
The inside joke is that the TSA is simply an employment program for the Federal Government. It's about hiring hundreds of people at all the big airports. It's not about security (it may have started with that intent, but no longer) - it's a jobs program, pure and simple.
Inside joke? I'm on the outside and it's painfully apparent to me how the utterly unemployable (and only them) land jobs in positions at the TSA, the DMV, or some other state-run shithole designed to make my life a living hell.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by DNS-and-BIND · 2014-02-24 07:56 · Score: 1

Because putting a snow globe in your carryon has anything to do with politics. "I'm going to raise a scene in the airport line right now and overturn this tyranny!!!" Good luck with that.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 08:15 · Score: 1

Because putting a snow globe in your carryon has anything to do with politics.
When there are government thugs in the airport violating people's rights, it sure does. It shouldn't, but it does.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Sir+Holo · 2014-02-24 09:44 · Score: 1

Any time the TSA insists that I surrender an item, I first insist on rendering it useless (value-less).

For example, I use expensive, specialized tweezers in my work, for which I must travel. Not knives—tweezers. On the occasions where the TSA wants to take them, I first destroy them (wrench them apart), so that they cease to have any value. I don't like thieves.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 10:03 · Score: 0

I feel like the local cable company has a slight lead over the airlines on not giving a flying fk about consumers
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 12:49 · Score: 0

Just in case you end up visiting the Bay Area again, the Ghirardelli factory and factory outlet store is in San Leandro on 139th street. You can get overstock (cheap and good) chocolate in quantity there...
Obligatory Buck Feta!
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by mjwx · 2014-02-24 14:21 · Score: 1

How about just going back to a reasonable quick scan on the way to the plane? The whole premise was that anything you could get through such a scan was worthless. Along the way we found out that you needed locking, reinforced cockpit doors in the bargain, and now we have those. Why not just go back to x-raying luggage, and maybe run the humans past the explosives sniffer? Non-invasive screening of humans seems fairly reasonable. I wouldn't want to let people on my multi-million-dollar aircraft without it, if I had one :p
It sounds like you've travelled through a decent airport.

One of the fastest international airports I've ever gotten through was KLIA (Kuala Lumpur International Airport) in Malaysia. I was running late due to a delay on a previous leg on a different airline, I managed to get checked in, through immigration and security and to the gate in less than 30 minutes. KLIA is not a rare example either, Changi Aiport (Singapore) is the same. Both KLIA and Changi have security at the gate, this is just a simple X-Ray for bags and a metal detector for people. To be 100% fair they are both new airports and the idea of putting security at the gate is relatively new. Another feature of KLIA security are the military police walking around in kevlar jackets and brandishing MP5's... although this will probably be excessive for most western airports but a visible police presence is a very good deterrent.

Moving security to the gate clears out a serious bottleneck in airport security.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Re:I know how to make it go faster... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-25 07:38 · Score: 0

no they don't

How about 'None'. That would be good. by RealGene · 2014-02-24 04:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.

--
Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.

Speedier screenings? Let me guess... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2014-02-24 04:18 · Score: 0

They will start giving the TSA goons a couple hits of meth before going on-shift?

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org

Total Recall? by RockClimbingFool · 2014-02-24 04:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?

Re:Total Recall? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:29 · Score: 0

Came specifically to make sure this comment was already added. Did not disappoint.
Re:Total Recall? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-24 04:41 · Score: 0

No, mod grandparent down (points-out-that-proposed-thing-could-be-vaguely-reminiscent-of-a-thing-in-a-popular-movie-but-doesn't-really-add-much-to-the-discussion)

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Total Recall? by Warbothong · 2014-02-24 05:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Are they asking for proposals for the scanner from Total Recall?
No, they're asking for proposals for the scanner from Airplane ;)
Re: Total Recall? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:18 · Score: 0

Not this. Mod parent down (Hater).
Re:Total Recall? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 06:05 · Score: 0

Why not?
St. Ronnie Ray-gun got his inspiration for the SDI boondoggle from "Star Wars".
This way we can spend billions on useless technology. If our poors didn't want to go hungry and homeless, they could bootstrap themselves into Total Recall companies and become RICH!!!!
Stupid poors.

No thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:19 · Score: 0

A faster screening method that still violates your rights, dignity and privacy. No thanks, I'll stick with the old method and force those TSA peons to feel up my penis and scrotum.

I could imagine someone working for the TSA and conversation they might have:

Hot chick: So, what do you do for work?
TSA guy: Oh, I work a minimum wage job feeling up other men's dicks.

Ala first Total Recall... by Taelron · 2014-02-24 04:19 · Score: 1

So they are finally thinking about creating a system like in the first Total Recall movie? Granted their are technological challenges, but why didn't they push for something like this before?

Re:Ala first Total Recall... by wonkey_monkey · 2014-02-24 04:44 · Score: 1

but why didn't they push for something like this before?
Because there wasn't deemed to be a need for it (especially if you go back about 13 years), and/or it wasn't worth the effort. Both are arguably still the case.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.

how does this speed it up? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:20 · Score: 0

According to the article:

The Department of Homeland Security asked for technology that can screen a minimum of 250 people per hour, which is slightly faster than the current pace of about 200 per hour for the full-body scanners. The new technology would not replace but would add to the screening technology now used at airports.

OK, so to use the car equivalent:

This construction area with a speed limit of 40MPH is slowing down the expressway too much. So, lets add an additional construction area after it with a speed limit of 50MPH. Yeah, that will make it faster.

Re:how does this speed it up? by shentino · 2014-02-24 05:27 · Score: 1

Depends, is the new scanning done in series or parallel to the old scanning?
Re:how does this speed it up? by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:43 · Score: 1

also it won't matter because they'll just reduce the number of lanes, or mess it up some other way. like when they installed the nudie scanners / phone booths, but replaced two metal detectors with each phone booth. it cut the throughput in half, to the point where the luggage machine is no longer the bottleneck. Just more $$$ down the pipe.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-02-24 04:22 · Score: 0

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Please tell me!? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:23 · Score: 1

How much is it going to cost to maintain the illusion of security?! Please tell me what to pay, I am a sheep that needs direction and I ****NEED*** my illusion of security.

TSA Speed by GigsVT · 2014-02-24 04:29 · Score: 2

I was once at an airport, I think it was LAS... people were all piled up in a clusterfuck right after of the entrance to TSA where they check IDs, even though there was about a mile of Disneyland spiral queue that was not being used. A helpful TSA agent started to open up the spiral queue, and was actually rebuked by a superior because "that's not the way they do things", and everyone that went in the queue had to rejoin the mosh pit of people.

And then they closed two of the four open screening lanes because "it wasn't busy enough to justify having that many open". We had to literally jog across the airport to catch our flight after being stuck in that mess for 50+ minutes.

I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

Re:TSA Speed by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:45 · Score: 1

>I'm not sure it would take new technology to fix the TSA, just some people running the show that don't have their head up their ass.
niether, because the technology will be chosen and operated by people with heads up their asses
Re:TSA Speed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 07:01 · Score: 0

You can't "fix" the TSA; it's an immoral organization that exists to violate people's rights. It must be destroyed.

Walkthrough screening device... by jratcliffe · 2014-02-24 04:36 · Score: 2

How about all those metal detectors they already have.

1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.

No weapons or explosives? On you go.

Re:Walkthrough screening device... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:49 · Score: 0

Then how is TSA going to scare the jujubes out of you? That, after all, is their primary goal.
Re:Walkthrough screening device... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:06 · Score: 0

They had that already. The problem was that the metal detectors were too slow because every time it beeped somebody had to figure out why, then try again. The whole point of the body scanners was to make the screening faster.
Now with the body scanners it is the X-ray machines that are the bottleneck. They typically run with multiple X-ray machines per body scanner because the scanners are so much more efficient.
dom
Re:Walkthrough screening device... by noh8rz10 · 2014-02-24 05:47 · Score: 1

They had that already. The problem was that the metal detectors were too slow because every time it beeped somebody had to figure out why, then try again. The whole point of the body scanners was to make the screening faster.
Now with the body scanners it is the X-ray machines that are the bottleneck. They typically run with multiple X-ray machines per body scanner because the scanners are so much more efficient.
dom
who are you? where do you live? surely not in USA. In USA they replaced two metal detectors with one phone booth screener, so even if the phone booth is faster on a per-machine basis they cut the throughput in half. Now I have to wait to put my luggage into the machine until I'm ready for the phone booth, because if I let it go in right away then it will sit on th eother side unattended so people will steal it.
Re:Walkthrough screening device... by jratcliffe · 2014-02-24 10:53 · Score: 1

You either work for a scanner manufacturer, or you have never actually been through an airport security line. The metal detectors are AT LEAST 2x as fast (in terms of passengers per hour) than the scanners.
Re:Walkthrough screening device... by mjwx · 2014-02-24 14:28 · Score: 1

How about all those metal detectors they already have.
1. Shut down the body scanners
2. Drop all the silly ID checking
3. Everyone goes through a metal detector
4. Luggage goes through an x-ray machine, looking only for weapons or explosives.
No weapons or explosives? On you go.
To be fair, there are other items that should not fly.

Corrosives, flammables, even organics in some cases. One of the biggest problems customs inspectors in Australia is the movement of plant and animal material that may contain pests between Australian states.

As for an ID check, well checking boarding passes is a good idea... So if I have to show my license or passport at the same time it's no trouble. A simple ID check prevent some low life from taking off with my boarding pass (well not mine, but a lot of other people will be that careless).

But yes, drop the body scanners in favour of x-rays.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-02-24 04:37 · Score: 2, Funny

Really, putting a locks on cockpit doors was just about the right response.

How do cockpit doors achieve behavioral compliance conditioning?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

one.... by Virtucon · 2014-02-24 04:44 · Score: 1

There are actually other things they should do but that costs more money and it's easier to put security theater into play than actually dealing with the problem. You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through, especially since underwear boy set himself on fire. The whole liquids thing was because of a "credible threat" that never panned out. Taking your shoes off was the whole Reid affair. Honestly I think a few pissed off business travelers who haven't got their upgrades are more dangerous to terrorists now than anything the TSA can come up with.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:one.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:39 · Score: 1

You could get more effective use of just good metal detectors and a few trained dogs with handlers than all this BS that they've put us through....
I wish. Dogs are mostly useless, for that kind of work.
If the boogiemen are going to "blow stuff up," wouldn't they do it in crowded spots like sporting events, malls, public transportation, festivals, etc., instead of airplanes? You know, "attack where your enemy doesn't suspect"?
Maybe the best thing to do about explosives is not worry about them, because they are frighteningly rare.
Re:one.... by gIobaljustin · 2014-02-24 06:57 · Score: 2

There are actually other things they should do
Nope. Get these worthless, immoral government thugs out of airports; the end.

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:one.... by Virtucon · 2014-02-24 07:06 · Score: 1

There are actually other things they should do
Nope. Get these worthless, immoral government thugs out of airports; the end.
Who says I was talking about the government?

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Can they keep the cost below $1 trillion? by wealthychef · 2014-02-24 04:46 · Score: 1

My prediction, 1rst bid: $48 billion for a prototype, expect that to triple in the first year.

--
Currently hooked on AMP

Total Recall For Real! by LaughingVulcan · 2014-02-24 04:50 · Score: 1

The Schwarzenneger original film I mean. Remember the nice walkway with the fluoroscopy-like corridor! We need this immediately, not just in all airports, but also subway stations, bus stations, and any place the right of freedom of travel may be present!

What stock can I buy to invest in this? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 04:51 · Score: 0

I want to get rich.

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. by houghi · 2014-02-24 04:58 · Score: 1

That would be good for airplane security. Howver useless for screening and random searches. No, I do not have a alu foil hat. This has NOTHING to do with security in any way. Not even security theater.
Note the [...]pushing for private contractors[...] part? Just giving the private sector some business and securing their pension when they get a new job at said companies after they leave the curent function.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

They already have such a machine by Patent+Lover · 2014-02-24 05:19 · Score: 1

It's called a metal detector.

This is going to be so awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:22 · Score: 0

Silhouette skeleton beatdowns!! I'll get you G-man!

Why TSA sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:27 · Score: 0

Although this article is on Cracked, it lays out in the clearest language and reasoning why the TSA itself is completely ass-backwards in its approach and completely ineffective in security.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/7-reasons-tsa-sucks-a-security-experts-perspective/

Re:How about 'None'. That would be good. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 05:28 · Score: 1

Where's the profit in that? Locks are relatively cheap. X-ray scanners are not - and are extremely profitable.

Yup, first thing that came to mind by Overzeetop · 2014-02-24 05:30 · Score: 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?

Will it still amount to technological strip search by rootrot · 2014-02-24 05:33 · Score: 1

I have no issue with security checks...nor to pat downs (of which I have had a few hundred, as I've opted out for years now). I have a *huge* issue with the expectation (tragically routinely met on a day-to-day basis) that people blithely consent to what amounts to a strip search without probable cause in order to board a plane. IAAA, and the 4th Amendment *should* mean something to people. Fear and dogma drove the adaptation of a technology that offers absolutely *no* substantive safeguard, costs a stunning amount of money, and effectively undermines *real* security practices due to the over-reliance on the 'efficacy' of Security Theatre. It would be nice if some form of rationality and thought could enter the discussion. I'm not holding my breath.

Create new em screening machines? by whitroth · 2014-02-24 06:00 · Score: 2

Right, like the ones that everyone hated, caused cancers in some TSA personnel (unadmitted by the TSA), and were pretty useless, since over and over, people demonstrated that they could smuggle weapons past them? And that are now retired, after tens of millions of tax dollars wasted on them?

Or like the new submillimeter machines, which have close to the same problems, that it's been demonstrated that you can smuggle weapons past them?

Here's a better way to spend money: fire all the managers and execs, and bring in some professional security managers. Ones that will, for example, come down like a ton of bricks on the screeners who do extra screening on good looking women, or pull vibrators or other sex toys out for their "amusement" value?

Go look at the archives from , by a guy who just quit the TSA after some years, and all what really happens back there.

Oh, and the boxcutters that the 9/11 hijackers were supposed to have had were *ILLEGAL* and should have been found before all this crap.

Keep the TSA on the job, guys, the terrorists have won, completely. America, the home of the cowards and the unfree.

mark

Re:Create new em screening machines? by bussdriver · 2014-02-24 06:55 · Score: 1

I for one think box cutters should be legal. Just watch somebody try to pull some shit with a box cutter today.

--
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news

Just make a machine that does "Ping!" by Cyberax · 2014-02-24 06:46 · Score: 1

Just make a machine that does "Ping!" and be done with it.

I used to work in a lab with nitric acid and azides and those nice sniffer dogs and complicated explosive-detection machines (that puff air at you) never detected anything. Even though I probably had more materials indistinguishable from explosives on my clothes than an average terrorist.

Then once I tried replacing an auxiliary laptop battery with clay. Nothing from those X-Ray scanners as well.

So... by SCHecklerX · 2014-02-24 07:55 · Score: 1

They are going back to letting us leave our shoes on, our laptops in our bags, and using simple metal detectors?

Speedier isn't useful, the stress is used to scree by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 07:59 · Score: 1

The quick screening machine is more likely a solution for locations with limited floor space to make it possible to screen passengers in a more compact footprint using fewer lanes processing more passengers per lane per hour rather than reducing the screening time a traveller encounters, because TSA actually needs that time.
The TSA has a large number of "time wasting" procedures. The purpose of these is to allow enough time to stress those already under stress from their malignant intentions to show the indications and for TSA agents to pick up on the indications. The long line before stripping all the possessions and then the elaborate scanning booth wth doors that close front and back is one part technological threat detection and two parts psychological threat detection. The technological side is necessarily perpetually tied to "fighting the previous war", i.e. looking for yesterday's clever innovations. The only way to guard against the next clever innovation is to look for the human being who intends to use it. People are fairly good at concealing their intentions for a short time in the great variation of normal behavior. The addition of stress accelerates the process and observation time allows agents time to distinguish (at least some of) those who are anxious about flying itself and business meetings and family reunions after the flight from those who are anxious about what they intend to do while flying.
The impetus to forego more elaborate screening of regular business flyers does of course originate with airlines seeking to avoid pushing more of their most profitable customers into what amounts to corporate jet ride sharing. When filled they are much less expensive than full fare tickets and w/o lines, gates, baggage carousels, etc. the caveat is when filled. Long screenings add enough travel time to make a 1 day trip for a meeting into a two day trip with an overnight stay, and suddenly the tipping point drops from filling 9 out of 10 seats to just 4 or 5.
The rationale for TSA for quick screening frequent flyers is that they have accurate biometrics and sufficient history to classify the individual as a good risk. Since there is a risk of detection and exposure at each screening, those with malignant intentions have no incentive to be processed dozens of times and then give up more personal information to get into a shorter screening line in the future, it raises the probability of detection rather than lowering it, it takes many months, and it's costly.
The key problem with putting more people into the low risk pool is that one you include all the low risk people you can identify eventually the low risk pool looks like the set of individuals who are least like and least associated with a 15 to 45 year old male who is a devout practicing Muslim. It smacks of racial profiling so limiting the program to the people the airlines are adamant they need as customers is where it's stopped. Of course, the frequent flyer crowd doesn't happen to be "diverse" but it does include congressmen, their families, congressional staff, professional lobbyists, and the news media, so it takes a lot of pressure off the TSA to fix the screening of the general public.

New machines? by PPH · 2014-02-24 09:06 · Score: 1

Thank goodness. I thought it would be something along the lines of not changing latex gloves between passengers.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

And a pony! by Chelloveck · 2014-02-24 09:11 · Score: 1

Talk about a content-free article. The TSA wants industry to produce a scanner that can detect explosives unobtrusively without slowing down traffic. Well, duh. Of course they want that. And if anyone knew how to make one they would have already. The headline may as well read, "Gold Coin Giveaways May Be Coming To An Airport Near Your" based on the TSA asking for a leprechaun to produce his pot-o-gold. It's about as realistic.

--
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.

Re:And a pony! by bugs2squash · 2014-02-24 11:12 · Score: 1

It doesn't have to work. Just so long as nobody knows it doesn't work.

--
Nullius in verba

LIke a Trusted Traveler program? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 11:41 · Score: 0

The TSA and more broadly, DHS/CBP are most certainly doing that and have at international ports for YEARS.

The tech's been around since 2009 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-24 12:17 · Score: 0

Can easily do this using passive mmWave scanning: http://trexenterprises.com/Pages/Products%20and%20Services/Sensors/security.html .

Not to mention other technologies ( http://phys.org/news163760682.html ) that might well further enhance the ability to do mmWave detection without the risk of cancer, we could easily make the health concerns much less (and the privacy concerns are hopefully also reduced).

Explosives detection is best done by residue detection - a quick palm and/or shoe swab (done by machine) could clear that up quickly and the other weapons through a passive scanner (either mmWave or metal detector). The fact that we have so much theater helps no one.

Disgusting! by mtthwbrnd · 2014-02-25 00:46 · Score: 1

Get rid of the scanners. There is no need for them. And while we are at it, fire all of the TSA staff who are sub human psycho path control freaks. There is no terrorism! If there were really a bunch of terrorists hell bent on killing us then they would be walking into shopping malls with suitcase bombs on a daily basis. It is easy to do. Since they are not doing it tells us that there are no terrorists. It is a big scam to get you to agree to pay these security companies (mainly Israeli?) to violate you.

Personal attention by billd10 · 2014-02-25 05:18 · Score: 0

I'm sure TSA agents so inclined will still be able to "feel up" passengers when they're bored.

Yes! Finally! Faster! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-02-26 00:55 · Score: 0

Can't wait for the improved experience
As it is I have to stand there and get bored as they slowly moved their hands under my shirt, down my pants, around my ank* ohhhhh yeah
But. Soon.
Hard down the front, yeah, up around the chest, quick grope round the shoulder blades, leg rub down and testicle penis combo grope and I'm come!
err. done!

Slashdot Mirror

Speedier Screening May Be Coming To an Airport Near You

163 comments